Even if you voted for President Obama, do you find yourself resenting him all the sudden? Are you inexplicably longing for the Bush era and ruing the day you marked your ballot for Barack instead of good ol’ Mitt Romney? Are your dreams filled with the sweet, musical timbre of Ronald Reagan? Well, then you might just be watching too much Downton Abbey, according to British economic journalist Stuart Varney. The Masterpiece Classic is apparently dipping into our subconscious minds — and the result? We’re becoming secret right-wingers. In related news, it's been proven that watching Jersey Shore will turn your skin orange.
Varney stopped by Fox and Friends for his usual segment about, you know, economics, and set his sights instead on the PBS series, saying that the antics at the Downton estate are mucking things up for left-wing politics (video below). ”Rich people are reviled. They’re dismissed as fat cats who don’t pay their fair share. We just hate ‘em. Rich people are evil. And yet, along comes this show, Downton Abbey [with] rich people dominantly featured. And they’re nice people. They’re generous. They create jobs for people. They’ve got style, they’re classy and we love ‘em. That show is wildly popular … It poses a threat to the left. The left says, ‘You gotta hate these people.’ But popular America watches a show that says these people are okay."Right. Because A) All rich people are Republicans, duh. B) Every liberal person hates rich people (transitive property’d!) C) If you think someone is swell and has serious swag, you automatically agree with all their political beliefs D) If you think rich people are humans, you've got to be right-wing. Varney knows how people think, okay?
What’s more, Gretchen Carlson (who only realizes that Downton Abbey is not actually spelled D-o-w-n-t-o-w-n during this segment) actually makes more sense than Varney. “I don’t think everyone in America hates rich people. But could it also be the theory that people are just sick and tired of stupidity on reality TV and they’re watching something that brings about beautiful pictures of relatively smart people in historical eras?” But Varney doesn’t listen to her. Silly woman, how dare you counter Varney’s irrefutable theory with something as preposterous as sound logic?! To that I say: Mr. Varney, how dare you say something so absurd that I’m forced to actually agree with Carlson, a woman who's famously allergic to things like encyclopaedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and facts?
Luckily, Varney’s got a friend in co-host Steve Doocy who steps up to support his claim and inadvertently contradicts the Downton-Republican-brain-washing theory: “Here’s the thing. The entire town loves the rich guy who lives in the abbey because he provides the jobs, he looks out for everybody, he provides free medical care for everybody. Without him … the place would go belly up.” Yeah, did you notice that part about free medical care? Last time I checked, that was a left-wing priority. But yeah, you guys go ahead and terrify us some more with your foolproof theory about how left-wingers all suddenly love rich people now and have no problem with them paying lower taxes or shooting down universal health care. Go ahead. Please.
Downton Abbey will continue its subconscious assault this Sunday on PBS when the Earl of Grantham combats women’s rights by becoming enraged over Edith’s new column about women’s rights. Just try to escape that without hoping they repeal equal voting rights among the sexes. We dare you.
Follow Kelsea on Twitter @KelseaStahler
[Photo Credit: Photo Illustration by Hollywood.com]
More:
Beyonce Lip-Synced the National Anthem? Why We Refuse to Believe It
Michelle Obama Style Guide: Did the First Lady Top Her 2009 Looks?
Beyonce and Jay-Z: The Other First Couple?
From Our Partners:
Craziest Celebrity Swimsuits Ever (Celebuzz)
Child Stars: Where Are They Now? (Celebuzz)

At some point in the early years of the 21st century a bunch of Hollywood executives must have gotten together and decided that animated films should be made for all audiences. The goal was perhaps to make movies that are simultaneously accessible to the older and younger sets with colorful imagery that one expects from children’s films and two levels of humor: one that’s quite literal and harmless and another that’s somewhat subversive. The criteria has resulted in cross-generational hits like Wall-E and Madagascar and though it’s nice to be able to take my nephew to the movies and be as entertained by cartoon characters as he is I can’t help but wonder what happened to unabashedly innocent animated classics like A Goofy Movie and The Land Before Time?
Disney’s Winnie The Pooh is the answer to the Shrek’s and Hoodwinked!’s of the world: a short sweet simple and lighthearted tale of friendship that doesn’t need pop-culture references or snarky dialogue to put a smile on your face. Directors Stephen J. Anderson and Don Hall found some fresh ways to deliver adorable animation while keeping the carefree spirit of A.A. Milne’s source material in tact. Their story isn’t the most original; the first part of the film finds Pooh Piglet Tigger and Owl searching for Eeyore’s tail (a common plot point in the books and past Pooh films) and hits all the predictable notes but the second half mixes things up a bit as the crew searches for a missing Christopher Robin whom they believe has been kidnapped by a forest creature known as the “Backson” (it’s really just the result of the illiterate Owl or is it?).
The beauty of hand-drawn animation all but forgotten until recently is what makes Winnie the Pooh so incredibly magnetic. There’s an inexplicable crispness to the colors and characters that CG just can’t duplicate. It’s a more personal practice for the filmmakers and should provide a refreshing experience for audiences who have become jaded with the pristine presentation of computerized imagery. The film is bookended by brief live-action shots from inside Robin’s room an interesting dynamic that plays up the simplicity of youth ties it to these beloved characters and brings you right back to memories of your own childhood.
With a just-over-an-hour run time Winnie the Pooh is short enough to hold the attention of children but won’t bore the parents who will love the film mainly for nostalgic musings. Still it’s the young’uns who will most enjoy this breezy bright and enchanting film that proves old-school characters can appeal to new moviegoers.

The first and most important thing you should know about Paramount Pictures’ Thor is that it’s not a laughably corny comic book adaptation. Though you might find it hokey to hear a bunch of muscled heroes talk like British royalty while walking around the American Southwest in LARP garb director Kenneth Branagh has condensed vast Marvel mythology to make an accessible straightforward fantasy epic. Like most films of its ilk I’ve got some issues with its internal logic aesthetic and dialogue but the flaws didn’t keep me from having fun with this extra dimensional adventure.
Taking notes from fellow Avenger Iron Man the story begins with an enthralling event that takes place in a remote desert but quickly jumps back in time to tell the prologue which introduces the audience to the shining kingdom of Asgard and its various champions. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) son of Odin is heir to the throne but is an arrogant overeager and ill-tempered rogue whose aggressive antics threaten a shaky truce between his people and the frost giants of Jotunheim one of the universe’s many realms. Odin (played with aristocratic boldness by Anthony Hopkins) enraged by his son’s blatant disregard of his orders to forgo an assault on their enemies after they attempt to reclaim a powerful artifact banishes the boy to a life among the mortals of Earth leaving Asgard defenseless against the treachery of Loki his mischievous “other son” who’s always felt inferior to Thor. Powerless and confused the disgraced Prince finds unlikely allies in a trio of scientists (Natalie Portman Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings) who help him reclaim his former glory and defend our world from total destruction.
Individually the make-up visual effects CGI production design and art direction are all wondrous to behold but when fused together to create larger-than-life set pieces and action sequences the collaborative result is often unharmonious. I’m not knocking the 3D presentation; unlike 2010’s genre counterpart Clash of the Titans the filmmakers had plenty of time to perfect the third dimension and there are only a few moments that make the decision to convert look like it was a bad one. It’s the unavoidable overload of visual trickery that’s to blame for the frost giants’ icy weaponized constructs and other hybrids of the production looking noticeably artificial. Though there’s some imagery to nitpick the same can’t be said of Thor’s thunderous sound design which is amped with enough wattage to power The Avengers’ headquarters for a century.
Chock full of nods to the comics the screenplay is both a strength and weakness for the film. The story is well sequenced giving the audience enough time between action scenes to grasp the characters motivations and the plot but there are tangential narrative threads that disrupt the focus of the film. Chief amongst them is the frost giants’ fore mentioned relic which is given lots of attention in the first act but has little effect on the outcome. In addition I felt that S.H.I.E.L.D. was nearly irrelevant this time around; other than introducing Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye the secret security faction just gets in the way of the movie’s momentum.
While most of the comedy crashes and burns there are a few laughs to be found in the film. Most come from star Hemsworth’s charismatic portrayal of the God of Thunder. He plays up the stranger-in-a-strange-land aspect of the story with his cavalier but charming attitude and by breaking all rules of diner etiquette in a particularly funny scene with the scientists whose respective roles as love interest (Portman) friendly father figure (Skarsgaard) and POV character (Dennings) are ripped right out of a screenwriters handbook.
Though he handles the humorous moments without a problem Hemsworth struggles with some of the more dramatic scenes in the movie; the result of over-acting and too much time spent on the Australian soap opera Home and Away. Luckily he’s surrounded by a stellar supporting cast that fills the void. Most impressive is Tom Hiddleston who gives a truly humanistic performance as the jealous Loki. His arc steeped in Shakespearean tragedy (like Thor’s) drums up genuine sympathy that one rarely has for a comic book movie villain.
My grievances with the technical aspects of the production aside Branagh has succeeded in further exploring the Marvel Universe with a film that works both as a standalone superhero flick and as the next chapter in the story of The Avengers. Thor is very much a comic book film and doesn’t hide from the reputation that its predecessors have given the sub-genre or the tropes that define it. Balanced pretty evenly between “serious” and “silly ” its scope is large enough to please fans well versed in the source material but its tone is light enough to make it a mainstream hit.